We performed a comparison between ActiveMQ and Amazon SQS based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Message Queue (MQ) Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The initial setup is straightforward and only takes a few minutes."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the holding and forwarding."
"I'm impressed, I think that Active MQ is great."
"I appreciate many features including queue, topic, durable topic, and selectors. I also value a different support for different protocols such as MQTT and AMQP. It has full support for EIP, REST, Message Groups, UDP, and TCP."
"The most important feature is that it's best for JVM-related languages and JMS integration."
"I am impressed with the tool’s latency. Also, the messages in ActiveMQ wait in a queue. The messages will start to move when the system reopens after getting stuck."
"There is a vibrant community, and it is one of the strongest points of this product. We always get answers to our problems. So, my experience with the community support has been good."
"ActiveMQ brings the most value to small applications because it will not cost you very much to complete."
"The solution is easy to scale and cost-effective."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon SQS is the interface."
"We use the tool in interface integrations."
"I appreciate that Amazon SQS is fully integrated with Amazon and can be accessed through normal functions or serverless functions, making it very user-friendly. Additionally, the features are comparable to those of other solutions."
"The libraries that connect and manage the queues are rich in features."
"SQS is very stable, and it has lots of features."
"It is stable and scalable."
"It's very quick and easy to build or set up Amazon SQS."
"The solution can improve the other protocols to equal the AMQ protocol they offer."
"The UI. It's both a good thing and a bad thing. The UI is too simple. Sometimes you wanna see the messages coming to the queue, and you have to refresh the dashboard, the console of the product."
"It would be great if it is included as part of the solution, as Kafka is doing. Even though the use case of Kafka is different, If something like data extraction is possible, or if we can experiment with partition tolerance and other such things, that will be great."
"From the TPS point of view, it's like 100,000 transactions that need to be admitted from different devices and also from the different minor small systems. Those are best fit for Kafka. We have used it on the customer side, and we thought of giving a try to ActiveMQ, but we have to do a lot of performance tests and approval is required before we can use it for this scale."
"It does not scale out well. It ends up being very complex if you have a lot of mirror queues."
"I would rate the stability a five out of ten because sometimes it gets stuck, and we have to restart it. We"
"Distributed message processing would be a nice addition."
"The solution's stability needs improvement."
"The current visibility timeout of five minutes is okay. However, I'd like to explore the possibility of extending it for specific use cases."
"Sending or receiving messages takes some time, and it could be quicker."
"As a company that uses IBM solutions, it's difficult to compare Amazon SQS to other solutions. We have been using IBM solutions for a long time and they are very mature in integration and queuing. In my role as an integration manager, I can say that Amazon SQS is designed primarily for use within the Amazon ecosystem and does not have the same level of functionality as IBM MQ or other similar products. It has limited connectivity options and does not easily integrate with legacy systems."
"I do not think that this solution is easy to use and the documentation of this solution has a lot of problems and can be improved in the next release. Most of the time, the images in the document are from older versions."
"The solution is not available on-premises so that rules out any customers looking for the messaging solution on-premises."
"There are some issues with SQS's transaction queue regarding knowing if something has been received."
"The initial setup of Amazon SQS is in the middle range of difficulty. You need to learn Amazon AWS and know how to navigate, create resources, and structures, and provide rules."
"Be cautious around pay-as-you-use licensing as costs can become expensive."
ActiveMQ is ranked 4th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 24 reviews while Amazon SQS is ranked 5th in Message Queue (MQ) Software with 13 reviews. ActiveMQ is rated 7.8, while Amazon SQS is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of ActiveMQ writes "Allows for asynchronous communication, enabling services to operate independently but issues with stability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Amazon SQS writes "Stable, useful interface, and scales well". ActiveMQ is most compared with IBM MQ, Anypoint MQ, Red Hat AMQ, VMware Tanzu Data Services and Apache Kafka, whereas Amazon SQS is most compared with Redis, Apache Kafka, Amazon MQ, Anypoint MQ and IBM MQ. See our ActiveMQ vs. Amazon SQS report.
See our list of best Message Queue (MQ) Software vendors.
We monitor all Message Queue (MQ) Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
